We have poor people in other countries and I feel that they should have more than they do, but why does everyone insist on blaming the companies for the jobs that they are creating for those people who obviously need them???

good point. it sucsk they get treated like crap and dont get paid crap (by US standards) but it is a job, and it can be worse, like no job at all, and no government to take care of you. look at haiti and somalia. they probably wish they had a sweatshop there. as of now they have jack shit, and look at those two countires. their biggest job is to simply survive. to have an atmoshpere stable enough to support a factory and export the items to other countires, it has to be at least somewhat stable. if you go to haiti or somalia, you will find that there are NO jobs, period. unless you count smuggler or highwayman a job. in these places water is the number 1 concern, then food, then making sure your house doesnt blow away, and of course there is always the threat of injury or death as others try and take what meager possesions you have. sweatshops suck, but it can be worse.

damn, well now that your on my side, who can I argue with?

Companies make a killing on sweat labor. Many factories that closed up in the U.S. in the 90's were making a profit, it just wasn't enough so they move them overseas. The idea that a benevolent multi national would somehow help the depressed citizens overseas is absurd.

Jack Welsch former CEO of General Electric said he would prefer that factories were on floating barges, that way they can move from nation to nation, where ever the wages or cheapest. It's a drive to the bottom with no regard for workers.

Land reform can have the single greatest effect on poorer nations. Get people working in the farms without competeing with the subsidized american agriculture, and you'll see the standard of living among poor increase.

Think about this though;
The cheap labor is finite.
Companies are growing and need more workers faster than the population is growing.
Once the population of cheap labor is used up, then there will be a shortage of cheap labor and they will have to raise the prices they pay the workers.

Not only that, but the companies are supplying jobs to the population, there is no one forcing the people to take these jobs. They need the jobs. If the companies are not treating the workers well then it is a GOVERNMENT problem. The government needs to set the regulations and protect it's citizens, IT IS NOT THE COMPANIES' RESPONSIBILITY.

to these guys companies are supposed to be the rock solid example of ethics, while these 3rd world countires governments get a free pass, and are made to look like victims of the mean spirited capitalists pitgs in top hats

Companies are given corporate charters by the government, they are created to work in the interest of the public. They get huge tax breaks, which do not offset the amount of jobs and services they provide. Small businesses provide more jobs to people then large multi nations.

Cheap labor will never go away, you will just see the cycle come full circle. Wages are already going down in this country. I think many people are going to be surprised at just how little money will be out there in the future.

We are more likely to use up our natural resources, before labor ever get's wrung dry.

These corporate bastards go into these third world countries and get 10 year tax abatements. Once the tax abatements are gone, so goes the factory. They pay zero taxes to the local government. If they were so interested in helping these people, why not pay for the taxes on the land. Do they not use the same roads? Do they not drink the same water? Why don't they pay their fair share?

I think there is often an arrogence among people in "developed" countries, that the rest of the world should live like them. In fact many of these civilizations did quite well for many thousands of years before Nike came in to save them from "poverty".

Colonialism screwed things up real good.

If we just let nations develop on their own, without outside influence they would be in much better shape...on their own terms.

Originally posted by Pepper
Companies are given corporate charters by the government, they are created to work in the interest of the public.
Your way off the wall here bud. The charters for a corporation say nothing of how the company is to act. All they are is a peice of paper that says the company exists. You can go to a secretary of state in the US pay 65 bucks and become a corporation.
They get huge tax breaks, which do not offset the amount of jobs and services they provide. Small businesses provide more jobs to people then large multi nations.
They get tax breaks because the government there wants the company to stay and help industrialize the country. Small businesses only provide more jobs because there are many many more of them. Saying that means nothing.
Cheap labor will never go away, you will just see the cycle come full circle. Wages are already going down in this country.
I fully disagree. Cheap labor lasts only as long as the number of workers outweights the demand for them. Soon enough the nitch will be filled and then the demand for workers will rise along with the wages.
These corporate bastards go into these third world countries and get 10 year tax abatements. Once the tax abatements are gone, so goes the factory. They pay zero taxes to the local government.
They get the tax abatements because the country is trying to lure them into the country TO HELP THEM BECOME INDUSTRIALIZED. The country WANTS these companies.
If they were so interested in helping these people, why not pay for the taxes on the land.
They are not so interested in helping these people. The purpose of almost every company or business is to make money. Why do you work? They dont pay for the taxes because the government was trying to give them benefits for staying.
In fact many of these civilizations did quite well for many thousands of years before Nike came in to save them from "poverty".
Nike picked areas which had high unemployment for their factories. Why is it bad that they offer jobs to those who have none? How can the option to work at a sweatshop put you into poverty? It can't, it only gives them an opportunity to make some money to live on which they needed because they had no job and were in poverty.
If we just let nations develop on their own, without outside influence they would be in much better shape...on their own terms.
Oh that is so much b*llsh*t and you know it. Every single country that is successful to any degree trades with others. Our influence in South Africa (the trade agreement) increased the total exports there by 500%!!! How did that hurt them?

1) Look into the history of corporations and you will see what I'm talking about.

2)What does it mean to help industrialize a country. Don't you think infrustructure (roads, access to clean water) would help develop this country? Where is this income supposed to come from. Money does not grow on trees. ANd the pittance of wages that companies like Nike and Huffy and Levi's is hardly a big enough tax base to build schools, health clinics, or living infrustructure. Small business jobs feed the community. When you spend a dollar in a small local business, it can get circulated 3-5 times before it leaves the community. Spend that same dollar at Wal-mart, and it's gone the next day.

3)Population is expected to reach 9 billion in the coming years. How do you expect to provide jobs for all of these people? Wages are going down in this country. What do you plan on doing for the rest of your life?

4)see 2

5) How are they going to make money when nobody has a decent wage to buy their products. Why do you even defend these companies? Chances are if they have an opportunity to expoit you, they will... for the sake of a dollar.

6) there are areas in this country with high unemployment. Why is it that Nike must go to where the wages are lowest. If these factory jobs allievate poverty, why does Mexico have higher poverty rates today then 10 years ago, before Nafta was signed? If all these jobs are so good, why do so many people emegrate north?

7)nations that proved to be very successful used a very stringent form of protectionism. Look at Russia and the "successes" of unregulated capitalism. These policies are destructive to the masses, and benefit a very few people.

Originally posted by Pepper
1) Look into the history of corporations and you will see what I'm talking about.
A corporate charter has NOTHING to do with what you are talking about, it just says "company so and so exists"
2)What does it mean to help industrialize a country.
An industialized system is an economic system built on large industries rather than on agriculture or craftsmanship and in the past has proven itself to be effective. Every country that is prosperous is industrialized.
Don't you think infrustructure (roads, access to clean water) would help develop this country? Where is this income supposed to come from. Money does not grow on trees. ANd the pittance of wages that companies like Nike and Huffy and Levi's is hardly a big enough tax base to build schools, health clinics, or living infrustructure.
It is not a companies' obligation or duty to repave a country or make sure they get clean water. That is the obligation of the government. The taxes are not where the country get's it's money, it is in the wages that the workers recieve.

3)Population is expected to reach 9 billion in the coming years. How do you expect to provide jobs for all of these people? What do you plan on doing for the rest of your life?
The population grows, the need and demand for products grows and thus the need for workers grow.
I do not plan to work for another, I plan to work for myself and hire others to work for me if it is in my best intrest. (I'm one of the nice guys getting people jobs)
5) How are they going to make money when nobody has a decent wage to buy their products. Why do you even defend these companies? Chances are if they have an opportunity to expoit you, they will... for the sake of a dollar.
If they don't make money then they go out of business. dur...
Why do you work? To get money!!!! Surprize surprize!
BTW; wages are not as low as you are making them out to be. People have money to spend on things.
6) there are areas in this country with high unemployment. Why is it that Nike must go to where the wages are lowest.
To make a profit. It's just like when you go to the market, will you buy the more expensive milk if it is just as good quality? Of course not. Don't think that the companies are bad because they shop around.
7)nations that proved to be very successful used a very stringent form of protectionism. Look at Russia and the "successes" of unregulated capitalism. These policies are destructive to the masses, and benefit a very few people.
I never said that the companies should be unregulated. I said that it is the GOVERNMENT who is responsible for how the workers are treated.

- Even just a tiny bit of capitalism has had an amazing and unexpected effect. Last year, Russia had an unexpected bumper crop of 85 million tons of grain, 10 million more than the country can use internally
- The free market puts a loaf of Russian bread on Russian supermarket shelves for about 18 cents

Get your facts straight. Russia has done nothing but gain from the introduction of capitalism.

WindWip, we have poor people in this country too, and I feel that they should have more than they do, also. At the rate that the debt and poverty are overpowering America, people over here will probably be thrown into sweatshop labor. This is what bin laden wanted for America, and he might get his wish. America is getting deeper in debt, jobs are leaving, prices rising. The only thing that will save America from crumbling is for the Whitehouse to be controlled by Democrats. Get the the Bush Whacker out.

I know this is more than you asked for, but I was on a roll.

Windwip how can someone making less then a dollar a day provide enough tax base to build a country?

I work to survive, i have to pay rent, and I have to buy food. I am employed by a non-profit. I am making less then what I was earning 3 years ago. WHen I worked for a big corporation i was hired as a temp worker for 2 1/2 years. I didn't have a pension (or even a 401K) I didn't have health insurence, and I didn't have job security. Tell me why am I suppose to allow these companies to thrive? They aren't look out for my interest, they care only for their own.

What determines a success for an industrialized country? What industrialized country has eliminated poverty? Which industrialized country has an equal distribution of wealth? Which industrialized country has land ownership for the masses, instead of a few vested interests. Which industrialized country has zero unemployment?

What job are you going to get, what jobs are you going to provide?

Look into the structural adjustment programs that Russia has had to endure since the fall of the Soviet Union. You will find that it is not the rosey picture you paint with grain exports. Please I cannot educate you on this. The information is there but you have to look for it. MOST IMF (International Monitary fund) projects have been huge failures. No country has benefited significantly by structural adjustment programs forced on their people.

Again look into the history of Corporate charters.

Originally posted by M&Mdelite
The only thing that will save America from crumbling is for the Whitehouse to be controlled by Democrats. Get the the Bush Whacker out.
I know this is more than you asked for, but I was on a roll.
Well damn u were on a roll. I don't have much against what you said exept about OBL. He may like it when we fail, but we should not base our decisions on if he agrees with it or not.

It did not sound like you meant that, but many people believe it so I thought I would just throw it out there.

Originally posted by Pepper
Windwip how can someone making less then a dollar a day provide enough tax base to build a country?
A dollar is a minor amount in our country. Instead, compare it to how much they made before and how much their income was taxed before the company supplied a job.
I work to survive, i have to pay rent, and I have to buy food. I am employed by a non-profit. I am making less then what I was earning 3 years ago. WHen I worked for a big corporation i was hired as a temp worker for 2 1/2 years. I didn't have a pension (or even a 401K) I didn't have health insurence, and I didn't have job security. Tell me why am I suppose to allow these companies to thrive? They aren't look out for my interest, they care only for their own.
There should be a balance between union needs and company needs. It appears that your company did not have a strong union or maybe not even a union at all. At the very least, the government should set regulations protecting the workers, but do not blame the company for following the regulations that have been set.
What determines a success for an industrialized country? What industrialized country has eliminated poverty? Which industrialized country has an equal distribution of wealth? Which industrialized country has land ownership for the masses, instead of a few vested interests. Which industrialized country has zero unemployment?
No government has all of those. You are searching for your personal eutopia.
An equal distribution of wealth is not a good thing though, unless there is an equal distribution of work.
Land ownership, as well, should go hand in hand with the effort and cunning put forth.
No country has zero unemployment, there are those who are sick, disabled, retarted and unable to work.
Look into the structural adjustment programs that Russia has had to endure since the fall of the Soviet Union. You will find that it is not the rosey picture you paint with grain exports.
You have asked nicely and I will go and research more than I have already.
Again look into the history of Corporate charters. What do you mean by this? I believe that you may have used the wrong word there. Corporate charters are only the paper that states that a company exists.

Originally posted by Pepper
Windwip how can someone making less then a dollar a day provide enough tax base to build a country?

You have to start somewhere. A dollar a day provides a larger tax base than zero dollars a day. Not to mention that the cost of living in poor countries is much lower than the U.S. It's a different standard of living, of course, but like you said, not everyone wants to live the way we do.

I work to survive, i have to pay rent, and I have to buy food. I am employed by a non-profit. I am making less then what I was earning 3 years ago. WHen I worked for a big corporation i was hired as a temp worker for 2 1/2 years. I didn't have a pension (or even a 401K) I didn't have health insurence, and I didn't have job security. Tell me why am I suppose to allow these companies to thrive? They aren't look out for my interest, they care only for their own.

Why are they supposed to look out for your interest? Isn't that your job? I sure as hell don't expect anyone to look out for my interests other than me, and maybe my wife. Any job, corporate or not, is an exchange of money for services to provide to the entity. If you think you're getting a raw deal you're free to go somewhere else.

What determines a success for an industrialized country? What industrialized country has eliminated poverty? Which industrialized country has an equal distribution of wealth? Which industrialized country has land ownership for the masses, instead of a few vested interests. Which industrialized country has zero unemployment?

I don't get your point? If it's not 100% perfect, it's not worth doing? A better question would be to compare industrialized countries with non-industrialized countries and see which have a smaller percentage of the population living in poverty.

Again look into the history of Corporate charters.

We do we have to do the work to prove your point?

Corporations are formed to legally protect the personal property of the owners/shareholders (absent malfeasance) and thus promote the formation of businesses that spur economic growth. If there ever was an altruistic purpose in forming corporations it fell by the wayside so long ago so as to be completely irrelevant to the argument.

I see poor areas in this country and they are getting paid more then a dollar a day and it is not enough to provide a tax base for basic human services. No system is perfect, but there are enough resources to provide people jobs with dignity, health care and an education. With resources left over for the disable or sick.

Corporations are paying the lowest % in taxes since the 1920's. Less then 23% of all taxes come from corporations, compared to the 1950's when it was over 50%.

This global economy is supposed to reduce unemployment, it's supposed to increase livability and reduce disease and poverty. But by the IMF's own standards they have failed. Unemployment is never higher, poverty and disease are more wide spread then at any other time. Wealth (real estate, stocks) is being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands.

I'm being told that we have to go there to bring about industrialization to these developing nations. And I'm wondering what does that mean? What has industrialization done to this country? It brought children into the factories, it exploited workers, and when it was done, they moved on to another country and started all over again.

What do you think this country is going to look like in 5 years, 10? DO you think the prosperity is going to continue? Look back 20 years and see what a job gave you. Our standards are definitely less then what our parents expected.

But shareholders must be happy. They are more important than anything else in the world.

Unions? har har. This was a multi national communications corporation they go through great lengths to discourage any union activiy anywhere. Though, windwip, I agree with what you're saying. Equality must go further then just wealth.

Would you say that a corporation is an individual? That is to say, does a corporation have all the inherent rights that you and I have, guaranteed in the constitution?

Please understand, I am not looking for perfection, but I can't think that my the sole purpose of my life is to appease some corporate entity.

Originally posted by Pepper
I see poor areas in this country and they are getting paid more then a dollar a day and it is not enough to provide a tax base for basic human services.
There are poor areas in this country, but the cost of living in this country is much higher than in undeveloped countries, so of course they would get more than the workers overseas.
What is the world are you talking about with tax bases? Are you trying to say that the companies should be taxed more? If so, then you do not have a complaint about the company, but the government.
Corporations are paying the lowest % in taxes since the 1920's. Less then 23% of all taxes come from corporations, compared to the 1950's when it was over 50%.
Again, your complaint is with the government, not the company.
This global economy is supposed to reduce unemployment, it's supposed to increase livability and reduce disease and poverty. But by the IMF's own standards they have failed. Unemployment is never higher, poverty and disease are more wide spread then at any other time. Wealth (real estate, stocks) is being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands.
How do you even try to rationalize that this is a comapany issue? A good global economy does help countries, but that is an entirely different issue, you are just ranting now.
I'm being told that we have to go there to bring about industrialization to these developing nations. And I'm wondering what does that mean? What has industrialization done to this country? It brought children into the factories, it exploited workers, and when it was done, they moved on to another country and started all over again.
You blame this on industrialization;
Industrialization brought jobs, made products cheaper and boosted the economy.
The bad things you speak of should be regulated BY THE GOVERNMENT! It is the government's fault that these things happen.
Look back 20 years and see what a job gave you. Our standards are definitely less then what our parents expected.
You yourself just brought up children in factories! We do not have that anymore, the standards are improving! You are practically admitting it yourself.

How much do corporations give in campaign contributions in a year? How much do normal everyday people give in campaign contributions in a year. Can my $50 bucks to a candidate compare with MBNA's (Credit card) 3.3 MILLION dollars? Who is the politician going to listen to more?

The number one task our representatives do is fundraising. Bush is projecting $175 Million dollars for his campaign, most of that money came from corporate interests.

Yes things did get better from the industrial revolution, but that reached a peak in the 1970's and has been going down hill ever since.

You are going slightly off topic. Just because it is called a corporation doesn't make it bad.

I agree with you on this issue though, campaign funding should be regulated in some way to prevent special intrest groups 'buying out' politicians.

Are you blaming industrialism? Why that & what would you propose we do instead?

Hey I'm just saying industrialism should be looked at a little more critically then the way we traditionally view it. While the short term benefits have been good for a couple of generations of americans, it cannot be sustained. We are seeing that evidence today.

Well what's done is done, we can only adapt to the changing times.

There have been good arguments made on both sides of this issue. Corporations have a primary responsiblity to their shareholders to maximize profits, but in this country this does not absolve them from their responsibilities to their workers either. We have minimum wage laws, safety regulations, taxes, labor laws and other regulations to promote the welfare of the workers. This may not benefit the company directly, but it does benefit the economy at large, since healthy and wealthy consumers are produced who then go out and purchase other items from other companies and stimulate the economy in general. Taxes are levied on this income which helps improve the infrastructure and the lives of the workers further.

It is all well and good to say that the company has no responsibility to improve the lives of it's workers, and to say that's government's function, but in reality it's a partnership. An enlightened government passes laws that both encourage business growth and responsible laws to protect it's workers and improve their lives. The process is a little different when a company moves overseas to find "cheap labor". The company is trying to maximize it's pfofits and that is not a bad thing for the company, and it can help the local workers by providing badly needed jobs. Problems arise when the company believes their resposibilities end with the paycheck, and the local government sees the company not as a way to improve the lives of the workers, but as a source of bribes and kickbacks. Quite often the only people getting rich are the companies, and the local government officials, leaving the people little better off than they were before the company arrived.

When a company sets up shop in a poverty stricken area it has both positive and negative effects on the local economy. Workers now have money to spend to buy neccessities for their families, but prices in the area for those neccessities will then rise accordingly and the buying power of the worker generally does not improve substantially. On the other hand, if you flood the local economy with excess cash, rampant inflation can lead to economic disaster. It's not all about money either. Have the workers really benefitted if they now make twice as much as they used to, but now are dealing with pollution, injuries, unhealthy working conditions, and all the other problems that go along with industrialization?

The only solution is to make sure that companies who do business in poor nations overseas, follow the same regulations regarding worker safety, pollution that they would if they did business here. Requiring these companies to abide by our minimum wage laws could lead to economic problems for these poor nations, so perhaps we should force these companies to take this money and invest it in the local infrastructure through other american companies. This might help keep the money out of the pockets of corrupt politicians.

While there are no perfect solutions to these problems, the record American companies have in third world countries is not an encouraging one.

Good post, Vilepagan.
The problem is : who has the power to force corporations to follow environmental and social laws in third world countries ? 3rd world govts usually do not have the power (and the will) to do so, and by the present international rules, no organizationcan do more than recommendations. I believe that ultimately the consumers and media from the western world are the only way to keep the pressure on corporations.